Monday, July 28, 2014

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes review

Title: Dawn of the Planet of the Apes
Director: Matt Reeves
Starring: Andy Serkis, Jason Clarke, Gary Oldman, Keri Russell, Kodi Smit-McPhee, Toby Kebbell, and Judy Greer
Release Date: July 11, 2014
Rating: PG-13




The Verdict: Dark, intense, visually astounding, and often quite moving, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes expands upon its predecessor in just the way a sequel should.

8.5 out of 10.0
 
 Everyone was pleasantly surprised when 2011's Rise of the Planet of the Apes turned out not to be the disaster we were all expecting. The effects team behind the film brought Caesar and his simian allies vividly to life, we received plenty of thrilling action sequences, and director Rupert Wyatt injected some genuine emotion into the film as well. After such a well-received surprise, could the 2014 sequel to Rise possibly do its predecessor justice?


  The answer is, quite simply, yes. Dawn is just as impressive as the first film, if not more so. 10 years have passed since the events of Rise, with Caesar (Andy Serkis) and the rest of the apes living harmoniously together in a village of their own making in Muir Woods. Caesar serves as the leader of the group of apes, and now has a wife and two sons. All is well until a group of human survivors encounter the apes while searching for a power source. From that point mistakes are made, betrayals occur, and it becomes clear that a war is coming. A war that will determine the dominant force on our planet: apes, or those who were once their masters.

 Obviously, what many will enjoy most about Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is its simply astounding visual effects. Right from the start of the film, we begin with a shot of Caesar's face, and he appears almost more full of life than his human counterparts. Every movement, every detail is so incredibly lifelike, it's impossible to leave the theater unamazed. Additionally, director Matt Reeves treats us to several swooping shots of an apocalyptic San Francisco, and the ape village is equally impressive.

 Of course, one can hardly give all the praise to the VFX artists. It's Andy Serkis who truly brings Caesar to life, just as he has Gollum, King Kong, and so many others. His performance is terrifying, powerful, and at times, deeply emotional. Toby Kebbell and Judy Greer also deliver superb performances via motion capture, as the bloodthirsty Koba, and Caesar's wife Cornelia, respectively. But the impressive acting hardly ends with the chimps. Jason Clarke gives a realistic, utterly believable performance as Malcolm, a leader in the human colony that comes into conflict with the apes. Keri Russell and Kodi Smit-McPhee, (who play Malcolm's girlfriend and son,) both infuse their characters with depth and emotion in some of the film's best scenes. And Gary Oldman is, as usual, excellent as the desperate Dreyfus, the commander of the human colony.

  And that brings me to one of the things Dawn pulls off so well: realism. That might seem a strange word to use regarding a movie in which apes on horseback attack San Francisco. But throughout the film, the actions of the characters, human and ape alike, are so realistic and believable that we get caught up in the story almost as soon as the film begins. Which brings me back to Dreyfus, and to a lesser extent, Toby Kebbell's Koba. We naturally want to view them as the villains of the piece, the human that wants to destroy "the animals" and the ape that desires to enslave his former masters. But the movie expertly prevents us from viewing both characters in such a way. In reality, they're both scared. Desperate. Afraid for their lives and the lives of their people. They both commit violent acts, but we're never truly able to label either of them "the bad guy," due to the way both characters are presented. 

 However, the film's realism doesn't end with it's wonderfully developed characters. One of the best scenes in the film takes place in the final act, where the apes, led by Koba, attack the human colony in San Francisco. While we naturally want to sit up in our chairs and grab bigger handfuls of popcorn as "the action" starts, the movie again prevents us from doing so. Bullets fly back and forth between the human survivors and their simian attackers, but rather than simply turning the sequence into a "fun action scene" Dawn presents it for what it really is: a horrible situation in which lives are being taken violently and instantaneously. There's nothing enjoyable about the scene, as humans and apes alike are mowed down by bullets. And we shouldn't be enjoying it. Films like the Transformers series or the Hobbit trilogy have turned violence into something fun, an entertaining fight scene where the good guys and the bad guys battle it out. And there's nothing really wrong with action scenes. There's nothing bad about cheering as Captain American punches the villain, or when Bond defeats his enemies and saves the day. But what Dawn does best is it presents the world for what it really is. It gives us a futuristic tale that doesn't seem very far away at all. A world where there are no clear heroes and no clear villains. Where simple mistakes can have disastrous side effects. And where there's absolutely nothing to enjoy about war or violence. Dawn shows us the world as it is, give or take a few genetically evolved apes.


3 comments:

  1. Hmm, that's very interesting. I've always been skeptical of movies featuring evolved creatures (especially ape-men) because it promotes a Darwinian worldview of survival of the fittest and often portrays humans as the villains but the points you bring out in this film demonstrates "not necessarily." Do you find these movies that display a Darwinian world order to be something we should see more of or that we should see more movies in general that display the attributes of Dawn? I'm not wholly convinced that the world of Dawn is "reality as it is." Reality in a world ruled by Darwinism, yes. A world without Christ, certainly. But a world /with/ Christ? Now we have a standard by which to measure men. But the heroes and villains may not be the ones we think.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Actually, I was very surprised upon viewing both Rise and Dawn of the Planet of the Apes to find that the words "Darwin" and "evolution" hardly appear whatsoever. The films are a commentary on the foolish decisions man makes, and the actions one must take to survive, rather than attempt to promote Darwinism.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "The actions one must take to survive" <---- isn't that a description of the Darwinian worldview without calling it such? A film can promote a worldview without naming it. In fact, MOST of the time films operate under an unamed worldview. ;) (I'm not saying it's bad to have a film from a Darwinian vantage point or a pagan worldview or whatever. I actually find it extremely helpful in demonstrating the logical conclusions of a worldview. But when we do have a film operating under a different worldview than presented in the Bible, we have to probe deeper into questions of "reality" and "the world as it is.")

    ReplyDelete